It’s interesting how you have to bend the facts to make your argument work. The issue is not that he denounced the more general version of the genetic engineering hypothesis but that he said it’s a crackpot theory.
I can imagine my changing my mind completely about whether a theory is true in 4 days if I spent time with the subject. On the other hand expecting that everybody else manages to do that switch in 4 days and that everybody who didn’t manage is a crackpot is something I wouldn’t do and I wouldn’t expect from anyone acting in good faith.
I assume the sentence you’re talking about is “The main crackpot theories going around at the moment relate to the virus being somehow engineered with intent and that is demonstrably not the case.”
Let’s define A = “is a main crackpot theory” and B = “genetic engineering claim.” This sentence says A implies B, and B is false. You seem to be interpreting this as B implies A—which might be true on average if we assume he thinks that A is common, but probably fails when you get to edge cases like inferring he thinks everybody who doesn’t agree with him is a crackpot.
but probably fails when you get to edge cases like inferring he thinks everybody who doesn’t agree with him is a crackpot.
I didn’t infer that. You might reread my comment.
In general, looking at individual pieces isn’t central. If you want an alternative interpretation, you should say:
What was the purpose of the January 1 meeting?
Why does the NIH feel that information about what happened in the meeting (and future discussion of the lab leak theory in Fauci’s emails) has to be hidden from the public?
What was so important for Farrar that Tedros should do and couldn’t wait for more then a day?
If you get answers to that we could form an alternative model of what happens and read the emails to determine how likely that model happens to be.
It’s interesting how you have to bend the facts to make your argument work. The issue is not that he denounced the more general version of the genetic engineering hypothesis but that he said it’s a crackpot theory.
I can imagine my changing my mind completely about whether a theory is true in 4 days if I spent time with the subject. On the other hand expecting that everybody else manages to do that switch in 4 days and that everybody who didn’t manage is a crackpot is something I wouldn’t do and I wouldn’t expect from anyone acting in good faith.
I assume the sentence you’re talking about is “The main crackpot theories going around at the moment relate to the virus being somehow engineered with intent and that is demonstrably not the case.”
Let’s define A = “is a main crackpot theory” and B = “genetic engineering claim.” This sentence says A implies B, and B is false. You seem to be interpreting this as B implies A—which might be true on average if we assume he thinks that A is common, but probably fails when you get to edge cases like inferring he thinks everybody who doesn’t agree with him is a crackpot.
I didn’t infer that. You might reread my comment.
In general, looking at individual pieces isn’t central. If you want an alternative interpretation, you should say:
What was the purpose of the January 1 meeting?
Why does the NIH feel that information about what happened in the meeting (and future discussion of the lab leak theory in Fauci’s emails) has to be hidden from the public?
What was so important for Farrar that Tedros should do and couldn’t wait for more then a day?
If you get answers to that we could form an alternative model of what happens and read the emails to determine how likely that model happens to be.